Not the least bit surprising that Frank Miller is as over-the-top and hard-edged as the work he produces. He is The Goddamned Batman after all.

IMO I'm not a fan of Occupy Wall Street. I'm a left-leaning moderate for the most part, but this just looks like a pointless, unfocused gesture to me. This isn't going to make "The 1%" do a damned thing. If anything, it'll just further their resolve.

That being said, I don't make Miller any excuses. It was a very uninformed, incoherent rant, and he should rightfully be criticized from voicing such an ignorant complaint, even though he certainly has the right to voice it.

I don't do boycotts really...at least not authors/artists/entertainers. Products perhaps, yes. Why should I have to deny myself good entertainment because I think the author might be a big fat jerk, or racist redneck? Seems to me most boycotts do the exact opposite of what you want them to and attract attention to whatever it is you're boycotting. If you actively boycott something or someone, I mean no offense, I just don't partake, that's all.

As for Miller, it's a pathetic, uninformed rant. I don't have much to add beyond that. Mark Millar's response misses the point -- Miller's tone invited the vitriol against himself. Had he posted a calm, collected article defending his points, I'd condemn shouty, insulting reactions -- but he calls the Occupiers rapists, for fuck's sake. As for whether someone's work should be boycotted because they are detestable depends on each case, and in Miller's case, I already don't give a shit about his work anymore. His writing has become apparently unintentional self-parody, and his art, well...

This was Miller then:

This is Miller now:

He hardly needed to be an asshole to convince me to stop following his work.

@ William Joseph Dunn: I admit you are totally right about Ditko so i retract what i said.Thanks for putting me right.Respect.

@ Jon Wake: If you are still with us could you please explain what you meant saying this site has "lost a step of three".I'm not having a dig.I don't even know you.But for some reason,probably a defect of my personality,maybe paranoia etc but i bear a petty resentment about your statement.Sounds to this old git that you are saying this site has turned to shit.That it's no longer good enough for certain people.

Maybe i should be saying this on open mike.This site is what we make of it.

Anyhow,if it's "Adios" time then bye bye and good luck.

Yet maybe i got your post wrong so if so it's nothing personal and no hard feelings.

I always figured Frank had issues. You can't read his earlier stuff without picking up on his definition of what constitutes a manly-man and who doesn't make the cut (just about everyone),

The issue of Daredevil where he beats the living shit out of a bunch of homeless guys just desn't read the same anymore.

Frank's issue with OWS seems to be that they're promoting chaos rather doing something constructive like, say, mindlessly obeying a strong leader like - let's be honest - Frank as he leads them in overthrowing the weak decadent democratic system.

Ah, what a short memory poor Frank has. Seventies. Down and out. No one would hire him. Luckily for him, some of his fellow writers and artists (Jim Shooter, et al) showed more kindness to him, than he's shown to the protesters. Karma, Frank. It's heading your way, my friend...

"...so many high-profile releases are based on a medium, the comic book, made expressly to engage the attentions of pre- and just post-pubescent boys. At least comic books themselves are so politically dim-witted, so pie-in-the-sky idealistic as to be hard to take seriously."

Enh. I mislike Rick Moody most of the time but he has a point. Hollywood loves comics because it's pre-sold storytelling and man, the Batman films, all of them, have been filled with disturbing violence and very morally ambiguous attitudes (Batman regularly blows up buildings, catches crooks in his car's rocket backwash, burns down a monastery in order to avoid killing one man - that one always got me). But you can buy Happy Meal toys that celebrate this violent murderer. At least Dirty Harry was never immortalized in plastic. And remember, it IS The Guardian, the paper that once mis-spelled its own name. That blunts a good deal of the piece's criticism, for me.

What actually does "cryptofascist" MEAN, anyway? Does that mean you're a secret fascist but you're showing a bit of leg?

As a question of critical theory, though - does an author's life and beliefs and informal writings have a bearing on critically interpreting their fiction?I'm not talking about considering an author's word 'bad' or 'forbidden' because they have controversial political views. Open that question up totally to the theoretical implications.

Is it fair, right or just to critically interpret Miller's work or any author's work, in light of outside utterances from their lives in any form. If so, how much?

Is it any more or less silly to critique an author's work in light of other writings, than is a painter? A chef? A football player?

@ TEX- You're right, of course. But come on. Moody's also correct, in his way. I loved Capt. America (the movie and the comic and the character) but .... there wasn't much there THERE, ya dig? (Don't get me started on what they did to Bucky.)

does an author's life and beliefs and informal writings have a bearing on critically interpreting their fiction?

Yes and No. Phillip K. Dick was not only a loony, he was mean to people in his everyday ("mundane") life. Lovecraft and Ditko have been mentioned - both are ... problematic, to say the least. Wagner, (whose music, I've been assured, is better than it sounds) was an unreconstructed anti-Semite, as was Henry Ford. Driven a Ford lately? Robert E. Howard, creator of Conan the Fucking Barbarian weren't nuthin' but a Mama's Boy. So? They're all GREAT, right? Yes and No. Frank's Stupid Opinions and Frank's Great Works are Column A and Column B, at least for me*. Does the fact that Roman Polanski is a statutory rapist detract from his films? Not for me. That much. I guess.